While the Tisza government promotes transparency, data from state reviews are being withheld

Constitutional lawyer Zoltán Lomnici Jr. asserts that Hungarian ministries cannot merely claim ongoing reviews as justification for refusing to release public interest data. He argues that the public's right to information is paramount, with restrictions being exceptional rather than the rule. "The practice of courts and authorities also points in the direction that the publicity of public interest data is the main rule, and restriction can be an exceptional possibility," Lomnici stated.

A key argument from the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy has been that reviews are still in progress and may inform future decisions. However, Lomnici contends that the ongoing nature of a review is not sufficient grounds for denial, especially when the data relates to already signed contracts, the parties involved, the subject of the contract, or the selection process. "In such cases, the public interest is not merely theoretical. Transparency is precisely what allows scrutiny of which companies a state body commissions, under what conditions, for what tasks, and at what cost to taxpayers," he explained.

“

The practice of courts and authorities also points in the direction that the publicity of public interest data is the main rule, and restriction can be an exceptional possibility.

Furthermore, Lomnici highlighted that under Hungarian law, the data controller bears the burden of proving the legality and justification of any data refusal. This means the ministry must provide concrete reasons for withholding information, rather than the requester needing to justify why they are entitled to it. The lawyer also addressed the potential for criminal consequences, noting that while unlawful data refusal doesn't automatically trigger a criminal investigation, it could be examined under certain conditions.

To establish abuse of office, Lomnici explained, a public official must breach their duties, exceed their authority, or otherwise misuse their position, with the intent to cause undue harm or gain an unlawful advantage. Therefore, proving criminal liability would require demonstrating not only the unlawful refusal but also the specific intent and other conditions stipulated by law. The situation is further complicated by the fact that three other ministries provided different responses to similar data requests.

“

In such cases, the public interest is not merely theoretical. Transparency is precisely what allows scrutiny of which companies a state body commissions, under what conditions, for what tasks, and at what cost to taxpayers.